The NDIS is undergoing significant reform, with Support Coordination identified as an area requiring substantial change. Concerns about increasing costs, inconsistent practice quality, conflicts of interest, and variable participant outcomes have led Government to examine new ways of delivering Support Coordination services.
The NDIS Impact Analysis considered four reform options, ranging from maintaining the current market through to a fully commissioned model with tighter expenditure controls. Ultimately, the analysis recommended a commissioned model as the preferred approach for the future. While the detailed design has not yet been released, the reforms are expected to reshape how Support Coordination services are accessed, delivered and funded.
The Four Support Coordination Reform Options
Option 1 – Do Nothing (Status Quo)
Under this option, the existing Support Coordination market would remain unchanged. Participants would continue to use funding from their NDIS plans to purchase Support Coordination from providers of their choice.
Benefits
- Preserves participant choice and control.
- No disruption for participants or providers.
- No transition costs for government or the sector.
Challenges
- Existing concerns regarding quality and integrity remain unresolved.
- Support Coordination expenditure continues to increase.
- Limited oversight of provider practice and outcomes.
- Conflicts of interest and inconsistent practice remain a risk.
The Impact Analysis concluded that maintaining the status quo would not address many of the issues identified through the NDIS Review and Disability Royal Commission.
Option 2 – Light Touch Reform to the Existing Market
This option retains the open market but introduces mandatory registration for all Support Coordination providers.
Benefits
- Strengthens safeguards and accountability.
- Improves quality assurance through registration requirements.
- Maintains participant choice and provider diversity.
- Less disruptive than large-scale reform.
Challenges
- Does not significantly reduce Scheme costs.
- Limited improvement in government oversight.
- Many existing market issues remain unchanged.
- Does not improve consistency of access to Support Coordination.
While mandatory registration would improve quality and safeguards, the analysis found it would not adequately address increasing costs or broader market concerns.
Option 3 – Commission a New Support Coordination and Connection Service (Preferred Option)
- Improved quality and consistency of service delivery.
- Greater government oversight and accountability.
- Reduced conflicts of interest.
- Stronger focus on participant outcomes.
- Improved workforce capability through merit-based commissioning.
- Better alignment with broader NDIS reforms.
- Greater control over Scheme expenditure through capped program funding.
The Impact Analysis found that Option 3 provides the greatest overall benefit by balancing participant access, quality, integrity, workforce capability and sustainability.
Importantly, the Australian Government timeline states:
“1 July 2028 – New support coordination and connection with commissioned service begins.”
This is currently the strongest public indication of the intended reform direction.
Option 4 – Commission a New Service with a Tighter Funding Cap
Option 4 is similar to Option 3 but introduces a much stricter funding cap.
Benefits
- Strongest control over Scheme expenditure.
- Greater predictability of government costs.
- Improved quality and integrity through commissioning.
Challenges
- Fewer participants may be able to access Support Coordination.
- Increased unmet need for participants with complex circumstances.
- Greater provider viability risks.
- Potential for poorer long-term participant outcomes.
The Impact Analysis noted that restricting access too heavily may ultimately result in participants requiring more intensive and costly supports in the future.
What Does the Recommended Option Mean for Support Coordinators?
If Option 3 proceeds as proposed, Support Coordination is likely to change significantly.
1. Increased Government Oversight
Support Coordinators can expect greater regulation, clearer service expectations and stronger accountability for participant outcomes. Commissioned providers may be required to demonstrate quality, workforce capability, outcomes and compliance against specified standards.
2. Greater Emphasis on Complexity and Risk
- changing participant circumstances
- escalating support needs
- barriers affecting outcomes
- risk and safeguarding concerns
- actions taken and outcomes achieved.
High-quality documentation and evidence-based practice will become increasingly important.
3. Stronger Connection Role
The proposed model refers to a Support Coordination and Connection Service, highlighting a stronger emphasis on assisting participants to access mainstream, community and foundational supports.
Support Coordinators will need strong knowledge of service systems beyond the NDIS, including health, housing, mental health, education, employment and community supports.
4. Greater Professionalisation of the Workforce
Commissioning is expected to favour organisations that can demonstrate capability, quality systems, workforce development and strong governance.
This may accelerate the professionalisation of Support Coordination, with increased expectations around qualifications, supervision, reflective practice and ongoing professional development.
5. Market Consolidation
Not all existing providers may transition successfully to a commissioned model. Some providers may exit the sector, while others may need to significantly adapt their service delivery models, systems and workforce capability.
Looking Ahead